Fairey Sea Spitfire

[Admiral Beez]

Did Fairey present any designs for their Sea Spitfire? I understand a folding wing was in mind, but would it be folding backwards like the future Fulmar? And what about the narrow, fragile and what would later be seen as bouncy undercarriage? I would think Fairey's version would be more comprehensive than the first Seafires.

Supermarine Seafire
"The Admiralty first showed an interest in the idea of a carrier-borne Spitfire in May 1938 when during a meeting with Richard Fairey of Fairey Aviation the proposal was made that his company could design and build such an aircraft. The idea met with a negative response and the matter was dropped."

 

[wuzak]

I understand a folding wing was in mind, but would it be folding backwards like the future Fulmar?

At least one of Supermarine's proposed Seafires had such a wing.

 

[Admiral Beez]

At least one of Supermarine's proposed Seafires had such a wing.

I wonder if it was sketched out or preliminarily designed and if Fairey's wing incorporated a wider track undercarriage. I'll do some google work.

 

[Zipper730]

Did Fairey present any designs for their Sea Spitfire? I understand a folding wing was in mind, but would it be folding backwards like the future Fulmar? And what about the narrow, fragile and what would later be seen as bouncy undercarriage? I would think Fairey's version would be more comprehensive than the first Seafires.

Supermarine Seafire
"The Admiralty first showed an interest in the idea of a carrier-borne Spitfire in May 1938 when during a meeting with Richard Fairey of Fairey Aviation the proposal was made that his company could design and build such an aircraft. The idea met with a negative response and the matter was dropped."

I wonder why they balked at it

 

[Admiral Beez]

I wonder why they balked at it

Good question. The later requests for a naval Spitfire were blocked by PM Churchill in order to maximize the number of Spitfires for the RAF. By Fairey's proposal was apparently in 1938, well before Churchill's arrival as either First Sea Lord in Sept 1939 or PM in May 1940.

My guess is some idiot at the FAA was set on the dual seat fighter and was pleased to finally have non-RAF types in FAA service. "A fighter aircraft of our own, not since the Fairey Flycatcher, so sod those RAF boys.". Which is why in the same year as Fairey's Sea Spitfire proposal is rejected we see Specification O.8/38 issued to Fairey for a navalised observation/fighter aircraft, the Fulmar. This decision makes no sense to me, since the FAA already has the Skua entering service in 1938, perfectly suited for the (relatively) fast observation role. I'd say the FAA got what they wanted, and thus could have got a Sea Spitfire from Fairey had they accepted the proposal. I'd love to know what that proposal looked like, even it's just napkinwaffe.

 

[Kevin J]

Good question. The later requests for a naval Spitfire were blocked by PM Churchill in order to maximize the number of Spitfires for the RAF. By Fairey's proposal was apparently in 1938, well before Churchill's arrival.

In 1939, consideration was made to cancel the Spitfire in favour of the Beaufighter because of production difficulties. IMO, the Spitfire wasn't really suitable for overseas use until the Vc came along because of structural strength issues. So I don't see how a Seafire could have arrived earlier. Even the Seafire Ib needed extra strengthening which resulted in its service intro at the same time as the IIc.

 

[Admiral Beez]

In 1939, consideration was made to cancel the Spitfire in favour of the Beaufighter because of production difficulties. IMO, the Spitfire wasn't really suitable for overseas use until the Vc came along because of structural strength issues. So I don't see how a Seafire could have arrived earlier. Even the Seafire Ib needed extra strengthening which resulted in its service intro at the same time as the IIc.

Good points all round. The randomness of daft procurement officers and bureaucrats - can you imagine the BoB without the Spitfire? The Hurricane will have to carry all the load, unless the Whirlwind can be expedited. A naval Beaufighter would be good, but that's another thread.....

Fairey were a leader in naval aviation, and understood the need for strengthened airframes and undercarriage, plus engine access panels that don't warp and seize after a hard landing; so I'd like to think their naval Spitfire wasn't just going to be a wing fold and a tail hook stuck onto RAF cores as we saw at Westland. Instead, Fairey likely had something akin to an entirely new aircraft, outwardly similar to a Spitfire, but more of a Fulmar on the inside. But who knows, that's what's driving my curiosity here.

 

[nuuumannn]

My guess is some idiot at the FAA was set on the dual seat fighter and was pleased to finally have non-RAF types in FAA service. "A fighter aircraft of our own, not since the Fairey Flycatcher, so sod those RAF boys.". Which is why in the same year as Fairey's Sea Spitfire proposal is rejected we see Specification O.8/38 issued to Fairey for a navalised observation/fighter aircraft, the Fulmar. This decision makes no sense to me, since the FAA already has the Skua entering service in 1938, perfectly suited for the (relatively) fast observation role. I'd say the FAA got what they wanted, and thus could have got a Sea Spitfire from Fairey had they accepted the proposal. I'd love to know what that proposal looked like, even it's just napkinwaffe.

Eek! I don't know what to say. Too much two-seats-is-good-one-seat-is-bad kool-aid mate. Firstly, the desire of the FAA to acquire a Sea Spitfire is plain evidence that the Admiralty wanted single-seaters. Secondly, the Fulmar was only ever intended as an interim design while a more suitable fighter specification was produced and thirdly, at the time the Fulmar and its replacement specs were written, the Admiralty was undergoing a state of flux regarding what future aircraft requirements would be because it had just been notified that it was going to regain control of the FAA from the RAF.

For fear of repeating myself, I've said all this before. Its fighter specs were for two new fighters, a two-seater to replace the Fulmar and another two-seater turret fighter (The Admiralty sadly bought into the turret fighter concept, too), but in less than a year both these had changed dramatically as a whole heap of meetings were held discussing the merits and drawbacks of single-seat fighters between 1938 through 1940. These specs were eventually re-written to become a two-seater replacement to the Fulmar, which became the Firefly and a single-seater, which became the Firebrand.

Clearly, their thinking had changed from 1933, when it decided that because of limited aircraft carrying capacity that not much effort could be devoted to a dedicated singler-seat fighter. In four years however, a single-seat fighter was deemed a favourable proposition, but to what end was not at that time known, although a possible Hurricane derivative was discussed.

So, why was Fairey not given permission to continue with its Sea Spitfire proposal? See next post...

 

[nuuumannn]

The Admiralty first showed an interest in the idea of a carrier-borne Spitfire in May 1938 when during a meeting with Richard Fairey of Fairey Aviation the proposal was made that his company could design and build such an aircraft. The idea met with a negative response and the matter was dropped."

To clarify. In May 1938 Richard Fairey was invited to a meeting held at the Admiralty to discuss Fulmar and Swordfish production. At this meeting Fairey was asked to speed up completion of the Fulmar prototype and help with Spitfire production for the FAA. It was Fairey who was not entirely happy with the suggestion as he felt he had too much work on his hands. It was pointed out to him that the Fulmar was ordered as insurance against the failure of the turret fighter Roc (heh, even the Admiralty saw that coming), and that he had previously complained about not having enough work, but Fairey stated that if he began production of Spitfires, he'd have to abandon work on existing aircraft. It was pointed out to him that the Spitfire was a small aircraft and easier to produce than Fairey's own designs (!) and reinforced the urgency of getting the Spitfire into service with the navy.

Fairey then said something quite odd that turns this argument about the Admiralty's reluctance to order single-seaters, as if any more was needed, on its head. Fairey did not think that an order for 300 Spitfires would be much preferable to 200 Fulmars.

So, the meeting ended and in September 1938 the Admiralty again re-iterated its stance to Fairey regarding single-seat fighters. Fairey again refused, believing that his designs, already in fruition should take precedent on the floors of his factories, not another company's. it was Fairey who refused the Spitfire production, NOT the Admiralty. This entire discussion can be read about in Spitfire The History, by Morgan and Shacklady.

 

[wuzak]

Fairey were a leader in naval aviation, and understood the need for strengthened airframes and undercarriage, plus engine access panels that don't warp and seize after a hard landing; so I'd like to think their naval Spitfire wasn't just going to be a wing fold and a tail hook stuck onto RAF cores as we saw at Westland. Instead, Fairey likely had something akin to an entirely new aircraft, outwardly similar to a Spitfire, but more of a Fulmar on the inside. But who knows, that's what's driving my curiosity here.

I don't think Fairey ever proposed a Seafire.

Supermarine proposed several.

 

[RCAFson]

Did Fairey present any designs for their Sea Spitfire? I understand a folding wing was in mind, but would it be folding backwards like the future Fulmar? And what about the narrow, fragile and what would later be seen as bouncy undercarriage? I would think Fairey's version would be more comprehensive than the first Seafires.

Supermarine Seafire
"The Admiralty first showed an interest in the idea of a carrier-borne Spitfire in May 1938 when during a meeting with Richard Fairey of Fairey Aviation the proposal was made that his company could design and build such an aircraft. The idea met with a negative response and the matter was dropped."

Where is this quote from?

AIUI, Fairey was asked by the Admiralty to build a navalized Spitfire based upon the Supermarine design. At the time of the proposal, in May 1938, Fairey was hard at work on navalizing the Fairey P4-34 which became the Fulmar, was producing the Battle, Swordfish, and finalizing the design and production of the Albacore:

"...result of this Mr Richard Fairey, of Fairey Aviation, was
invited to attend a meeting held at the Admiralty in May [1938]
ostensibly to discuss the Fulmar prototype and Swordfish
production. The Fulmar (08/38) had been ordered the previous
February and a contract placed for 127 aircraft at a cost of
£1,450,000, deliveries to start in early 1941. AMSO asked
Fairey if he could speed up completion of the Fulmar prototype
due to appear in October 1940, and he (Fairey) help with
Spitfire production as he wanted to get as many of the fighters
as possible by March 1940.

If Fairey was surprised at this request he did not show it
and replied it was not possible as it would mean producing too
many aircraft types in less than a two year period. AMSO
countered this by saying that as Fairey had complained at a
Previous meeting of not receiving sufficient orders to keep his
factories busy, he should be in a good position to assist with the
Spitfire requirement. Fairey replied that he had meant he was
only able to deal with his own designs. AMSO said the Fulmar
was really ordered as an insurance against failure of the
Blackburn Roc and this event was now fact. Fairey interrupted
to say that to produce the 500 Spitfires required by the
Admiralty production of most of his current aircraft would
have to be abandoned, and the completion date of the Fulmar
prototype would be much later than scheduled..."
(Morgan and Shacklady)

The net result would have been catastrophic to the FAA, as they would have been deprived of most of their aircraft, probably until 1942. The design of the Spitfire was still in flux and the Sea Spitfire was a really a paper proposal from Supermarine, and when Supermarine got around to building the folding wing Seafire in 1943, the backward folding wing design had disappeared.

 

[Admiral Beez]

. it was Fairey who refused the Spitfire production, NOT the Admiralty.

Interesting. If Fairey rejected the project, I suppose there's no proposal for what Fairey would have made. Too bad.

At least one of Supermarine's proposed Seafires had such a wing.

That still would have been interesting to see, even if nothing to do with Fairey.

 

[nuuumannn]

I suppose there's no proposal for what Fairey would have made.

No, there never was. It was put to Fairey to produce the Spitfire under licence, not produce his own version of the fighter.

 

[Zipper730]

Just out of curiosity, when the FAA adopted the Hurricane and Seafire, did the fit them with radio-nav aids suitable for single-man use?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Just out of curiosity, when the FAA adopted the Hurricane and Seafire, did the fit them with radio-nav aids suitable for single-man use?

Yes, they both had a radio direction finder setting to locate the beacon on their carrier. The second crewman on the Fulmar wasn't to operate the beacon detection but instead was to navigate once the Fulmar was beyond the range or over the horizon of the beacon, at 10,000 feet this would be about 140 miles from the carrier, at 20,000 feet about 190 miles.

This means our Sea Hurricane and Seafire pilot has to be a good navigator beyond the beacon's range, but same as every single seat fighter pilot before him who flew Gladiators, Nimrods and Flycatchers, AIUI without the benefit of the beacon.

Good info on FAA homing beacons here https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attac...-blind-approach-of-naval-aircraft-pdf.294386/

 

[MikeMeech]

Did Fairey present any designs for their Sea Spitfire? I understand a folding wing was in mind, but would it be folding backwards like the future Fulmar? And what about the narrow, fragile and what would later be seen as bouncy undercarriage? I would think Fairey's version would be more comprehensive than the first Seafires.

Supermarine Seafire
"The Admiralty first showed an interest in the idea of a carrier-borne Spitfire in May 1938 when during a meeting with Richard Fairey of Fairey Aviation the proposal was made that his company could design and build such an aircraft. The idea met with a negative response and the matter was dropped."

Hi

Joseph Smith's design drawing submitted on 2nd January 1940 for a Supermarine 'Sea Spitfire' Type 338 with backwards folding wing (and Griffon engine) is attached. This is from p.507 of 'Spitfire, The History'. With the text about the Sea Spitfire already mentioned, can the question of-What the source was for your quote?-be answered as it appears to be totally at odds with Morgan and Shacklady's information.

Mike

 

[fastmongrel]

The second crewman on the Fulmar wasn't to operate the beacon detection but instead was to navigate once the Fulmar was beyond the range or over the horizon of the beacon, at 10,000 feet this would be about 140 miles from the carrier, at 20,000 feet about 190 miles.

The 2nd crewman in a Fulmar was usually a TAG (Telegraphist Air Gunner), a navigator known as an Observer in the FAA was carried occasionally when leading a strike or ferry mission but normally the pilot was the navigator the TAGs job was to work the homing beacon equipment.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Hi

Joseph Smith's design drawing submitted on 2nd January 1940 for a Supermarine 'Sea Spitfire' Type 338 with backwards folding wing (and Griffon engine) is attached. This is from p.507 of 'Spitfire, The History'. With the text about the Sea Spitfire already mentioned, can the question of-What the source was for your quote?-be answered as it appears to be totally at odds with Morgan and Shacklady's information.

View attachment 580201

Mike

Thanks Mike, that's exactly what I was hoping to see. That rearward fold pivot point would be at a very thin place in the wing structure.

 

[nuuumannn]

With the text about the Sea Spitfire already mentioned, can the question of-What the source was for your quote?-be answered as it appears to be totally at odds with Morgan and Shacklady's information.

Let's not get our wires crossed here. The reason why Supermarine was not given instruction to immediately procceed with a Sea Spitfire when it first proposed one is because production and development of the Spitty was reserved for the RAF, not because the Admiralty didn't want one. That their lordships did is obvious and well known.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Let's not get our wires crossed here. The reason why Supermarine was not given instruction to immediately procceed with a Sea Spitfire when it first proposed one is because production and development of the Spitty was reserved for the RAF, not because the Admiralty didn't want one. That their lordships did is obvious and well known.

Had they not asked for the Fulmar, I think they could have got one. As we see above, Fairey refused in 1938 to produce the Seafire because they were already busy on the Fulmar and Albacore. But had the Admiralty asked for a Spitfire from the onset of their looking for the Sea Gladiator's replacement I see no reason they couldn't get one, as Fairey isn't busy with the Fulmar.